[discuss] What is MSism?

Thu Mar 27 10:31:51 UTC 2014

On 14:02 26/03/2014, Michel Gauthier said:
>I am quite interested in your clear explanation of what MSism and 
>polycracy (might) mean. However, I feel you make a dichotomy between 
>those two, or at least between diktyarchy and polycracy while one 
>could imagine (it seems it is what we do all the day long) a 
>complementarity between those two. On your French list you use the 
>idea of the multitude having to invest the magnitude's mailing lists 
>in order to keep themselves abreast, I would say, of the way they 
>are going to be coocked. Is that not some forme of cooperation 
>between the Cook and the cooked?

This is a very interesting, important, and complex question just as 
all the problems we face herein are. I accept, however, that NO other 
thing here is more pressing, relevant, or fruitful. In despite of 
what some, more concerned by details, may wrongly assume. The 
emphasis put on MSism by NTIA shows it is the key part of the debate: 
if one wants to negotiate without knowing exactly what one is 
negotiating about there are few chances that we will reach a win/win 
situation, i.e. stability.

We have two propositions to a complex problem that is not so 
surprisingly identified through the DNS (i.e. the human semantic 
layer), but which is actually the governance of the digisphere (from 
bits and digits to big data and quantum computers, including our own 
human ecosystem in their increasingly important context). As for 
everything, elements or quantities are of two kinds: multitude and 
magnitude, or discrete quantity and continuous quantity. Our common 
vision is continuity (height, width, depth). The digital 
renormalization that we currently live with is the capacity 
introduced by Jacquard to see the discontinuity in the continuity 
(data with their three dimensions: data, metadata, and syllodata) 
that we tie together by the continuity/discontinuity of time. 
Relativity and quantum physics. Visible (photons) and unvisible (EPR).

- Multitude in everything or discrete quantity or individuality. It 
is a natural plurality or multiplicity. This means that quantity 
(digits, people, power, coins and bank notes, projects, decisions, 
etc.) is divisible into really separate or non-continuous persons 
(this is democracy), ideas (topics as says Fadi), or parts (this is 
mechanics). And in this case: stake/share/status-holders.

- Magnitude or continuous quantity is divisible into continuous parts 
(numers, concepts, principles, globality), that is, there is no 
natural separation or division between them. Politically, this is 
concerted cooperation. In our case, this is functions (ICANN, IANA).

The danger of multitude is fragmentation. The whole idea of 
Montevideo is to oppose fragmentation. In turn, the danger of 
magnitude is the augmentation of power due to an abuse of its 
continuity: up to now through the numbers, numerus, i.e. money 
(oligarchy), time (hereditary power), and now also by the network 
continuity (diktyarchy).

There certainly is, as you point it out, a possible compromise (we 
live as you say in, by, from it!). It is to blend them into reality: 
putting continuity in discontinuity (e.g. projects, plans, 
representation) and putting discontinuity in discontinuity (e.g. 
renewing people, reviews, phased projects, elections). This is the 
mathematical incompletude, the notion of infinite, etc.  In the case 
of MSism, the problem (apart from a possible lack of democracy) is 
the impermeability of the multitude due to the right to continuously 
hold some stakes. Two, in particular, seem to be a problem:

- the share-holder: He has purchased the right to hold. Corporations.
- the status-holder. He holds on a permanent basis.

These two cases tend to increase the size of the minimum stake to be 
involved. Democracy means that everyone belongs to the elite. The 
stake is simply to be a citizen. Everyone is equal. In MSism it is on 
an equal footing. The footing may be very high. In democratic Athens, 
you had to be a citizen while the multitude comprised mechanicians 
and slaves (today's techies and consumers).

If you take care of the two dangers and weight them accordingly you 
can reach a good balance. This *IS* the problem we have to work out. 
With or without the ICANN, the NTIA and/or the IANA. Just a good rule 
of thumb: diktyarchy is the networked bureaucracy, and polycracy is 
the global democracy. MSism is a circumstantial balance among those 
two, where groups of public (States), private (Corporate), and common 
(others) interests aggregate in enhanced cooperation. We need that 
enhanced cooperation. As usual, a good protection against unequal 
treatment and unethical processes, while there is such large 
differences between the involved stakeholders, from you and me to the 
US and UN, is subsidiarity and autopoiesis, ( 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis), i.e. the way the autocatalytic 
dynamic of life works.

The internet is a large and complex system (RFC 3439) that is a 
covenant between people about the way their machines will work 
together. This is why code is law. However, this also means that law 
is code. And today we have two laws, proceeding from two cultures, 
which are interestingly confronted. The law from magnitude by the 
largest world economy and the Congress status quo, and since 
yesterday, the law of multitude by the Brazilian Parliament and the 
effort of the digital society. What is to be discovered is how to blend them.

In the WSIS, we, the people of the world, consensually expressed that 
it was through a people centered society, in the respect of Human 
Rights. If it is to be through MS enhanced cooperation, our problem 
to be solved is how to make MSism and enhanced cooperation enter Human Rights.

jfc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140327/1a7ab6fb/attachment.html>